Skip to main content

Full text of "Annual Evaluation Report Fiscal Year 1984"

See other formats


II.                    TO GEPA 417(a)

A.    Goals and Objectives

During FY 1984 the  Department's principal   objectives  for this program were

o   Encourage institutional  participation in the SEOG program to increase the
of students having access to this form of aid.

» Establish and disseminate standard needs analysis criteria and approve
SulvalSt institutional analysis formulas so that all students would
have equal opportunity to participate.

!»    Progress and Accomplishments

o The SEOS program has had a net increase of approximately 125 participating
institutions a year (mostly proprietary) since 1978. In academic year
1983-84, approximately 4,200 institutions will share in the allocation

distributed by the Department of Education.

o The Department published tables of expected family contribution and limits
for approved institutional needs analysis systems in the Code of Federal


C.    Costs> Benefits and Effectiveness

Program Scope: The program staff reported that in academic year 1982-83
635,691 students received grants, a drop from 658,893 in 1981-82. In academic
year 1982-83 the average grant award amount was $539, down slightly from
$549 in 1981-82 (E.I, E.2). Data on first-time, full-time freshmen partici-
pants in SEOG is shown in Table 1, covering the academic years from 1980-81
to 1983-84. Between academic years 1981-82 and 1982-83, participation declined
{§«§§% to 5.87%) but average awards increased $687 to $772. However, only
full-tine freshman are shown in Table 1 while program data Include all
classes and half-time students.

In academic years 1983-84, the SEOG participation rate among first-time,
full-time dependent freshmen rose to 7.2 percent. Program data, when avail-
able, may show a slight growth in participating students from academic year

1982-83 to 1983-84.

Program Effectiveness:    The   equitable   distribution    of   SEOG   funds    can   be
assessed by   determining   how   it   varies   with   measures   of   ability   to   pay
These may  be   individually  oriented,  e.g.,   family  income   for   students,   or
group oriented, e.g., median income or average need within a  State.     Ideal-
ly, funds distributed  should  reflect  ability to pay and  cost   of education,

targeted at only the neediest students, the SEOG pro-
to all students with any demonstrated financial need.
™mrtf"h* frorn institutions show how grant recipients vary

to                                         u                                                                           s   vary

^~njJSftttan  TabW   Vt* T^   T*'   Tdble   2>   USe*   <"*!£?

fairly imifnL              e  lf  n   shows that   both   recipients  and  funds   vary

fairly uniformly even across the three lowest income categories.on the results of quality control studies and external